Leaderboard

Here is a chart showing how the universe evolves from the surface of last scattering to today and into the future. Can your model perform all these calculations and match observational evidence? This chart uses the current Planck datasets then calculates distance now, distance when the signal first sends to Earth ie light, recessive velocity when the signal first arrives and recessive velocity today. The Hubble rate in the past compared to now and the proper distances. This is what proper modelling in cosmology should allow us to do. Provide predictions that are testable... [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&739.062&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&45.031283&0.060930&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&501.112&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&44.653685&0.089109&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&230.379&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&43.602350&0.189264&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&156.206&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&42.887747&0.274559&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.014&71.813&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&40.943206&0.570134&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&48.692&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&39.639382&0.814081&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.045&22.386&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&36.119894&1.613538&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&15.178&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&33.771262&2.224979&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.143&6.978&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&27.454972&3.934517&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&4.731&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&23.266389&4.917511&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.460&2.175&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&12.397762&5.699693&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&1.475&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&6.042158&4.096813&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.468&0.681&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&4.910267&7.207286&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&0.464&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&8.515267&18.345587&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&11.040250&34.912335&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&0.215&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&12.776339&59.302512&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&0.147&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&13.962589&95.126009&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&14.771503&147.715032&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&0.068&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&15.322788&224.907769&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&0.046&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&15.698407&338.211934&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&15.954315&504.519738&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&0.022&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&16.128669&748.626510&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&0.015&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&16.247453&1106.926069&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

The association between BMI and health risks isn't anymore telling then age, genetics, and lifestyle are. BMI is just a superficial way to guess at what is going on with ones diet and lifestyle. Provided one has a good diet, active lifestyle (relative to age), and feels healthy their BMI probably isn't important. That said it has been my experience that people simply are not honest with themselves about their diets and activity levels or are totally ignorant of them. In such cases a generic standard (BMI) is useful in creating a standard for those otherwise have known. Where I work we actually get weighed in a couple times a year at a minimum. As a collateral responsibility I work with people who miss their weight. In my experience the overwhelming majority of people who are over their BMI are so because they are fat. In 12yrs of working with those who weighed in over I have never seen where someone simply had too much muscle. I think people use the too much muscle excuse to deny the simply truth that they are fat. When Arnold Schwarzenegger won his first Mr. O he measured 186 cm (6'1) tall at 107kg (236lbs) in weight. Admittedly he was also using steroids. Yet I have known many men over the years heavy as or heavier than 107kg who are no taller than 186cm who insist it is all muscle which would mean they are more muscular than a competition ready Arnold Schwarzenegger cycling steroids. While it is true some athletes pack on weight for their sport it is also true that most are fat. Athletic skill positions seldom ever require artificial weight. It is generally the the known skill position where one benefits from size and in those non-skill positions the sizes typically includes lots and lots of fat.

Ok magnetism is primarily due to the net magnetic moment alignment of electrons, which involves spin. Every electron has a magnetic dipole moment. In most materials the alignment cancel each other out. However certain materials such as hematite the net alignment is imbalanced. Here is a rather lengthy 633 page article that has excellent coverage of magnetism. This will greatly help you in your physics course. It will detail several highly important details such as the Currie temperature etc. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore/libricorsoptr/coey-magnetism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7puu4-pTbAhUeHGMKHVdgBO0QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw01a_57WGwNznR89qLB3zxW The article is essentially a one stop resource for pretty much anything you will need to know or want to know about magnetism and why certain materials have greater magnetic susceptibility and others don't. How this ties into spin orbitals etc. It also details Maxwells equations etc. Rather than give snippets of details which would be unavoidable via strictly questions and answers on a forum this will provide you a comprehensive and rather detailed understanding of magnetism.

I can control whether I’ll have a drink tonight, I can’t control whether I will win 365mln in the Euro Jackpot tonight. There are various levels of controling the future, I can make decisions which have a 100% binary outcome on the future...like for example I won’t be driving after having drinks tonight which renders a 100% outcome that I will not hit anybody while drunk tonight. On the other hand I can only partially control some aspects of the future.

All you have to do to stop the property damage is get smart-- The volcano is not unknown or a mystery-- the mystery is why people insist on developing property in the path of the volcano.

You might want to rethink that

Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it. Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe. Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses. To all of you on here, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it. Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it. And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use. If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are. *** * Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator. * And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe. * And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg. * And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang. And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.** *** And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering. * Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power? * Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism? You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant. Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power. Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know. *** Conclusion: Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day. That someone is John Lennox. Citing from wikipedia means nothing. Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.

1-I talked about two points , not two galaxies , you are mistaking me for that 2-the behaviour of celestial bodies is more complex , and we cannot judge the behaviour of the universe 3- a universe without some laws that govern its inflation is chaotic , the homogeneity of space fabric is a testimony against that 4-the inflation speed is tightly regulated by dimensional energy symmetry it is the basic law of nature

0.011 Linear +0.00634 non_linear =0.01734 total 0.556 -0.544 =0.012 linear 0.21049 -0.21027 =0.00022 non_linear 0.012 +0.00022 =0.01222 total I suspect you are complaining about the inconsistent number of decimal places & rounding errors in excel. How do you deal with non_linear acceleration? (Numerically). Especially when your calculus is an approximation?